You must use the “Get Article” link below and use the copied text for your repost. Stories may not be edited without permission from Ensia. Please send an email to contact@ensia.com with a link to the republished story on your site once posted.

Images and other visuals are not included in this license. For specific questions related to visuals, please contact Todd Reubold. For other inquiries, email contact@ensia.com.

The post is now in your clipboard. You can paste it directly into the WYSIWYG editor of your site.

June 24, 2014 — Time and again the scientific urgency for global action on climate change is stifled by chaotic U.N. climate talks as politics and process prevents the world’s policy makers from coming up with a clear plan for 2020 to divide up the global effort of reducing greenhouse emissions.

Looking ahead to the 2015 talks in Paris, can the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and 195 governments do in two years what they have failed to do in 22? Or has the UNFCCC’s usefulness run out of steam?

After the latest talks last November, Samantha Smith, leader of WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Initiative, wrote in a statement, “Negotiators in Warsaw were clearly unprepared or unable to take us towards a better future … The lack of urgency shown by governments in this process has been sickening.” Even European climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard questioned if the world still needs the U.N. talks.

The U.N. climate talks are worth saving because they are the only international process for addressing climate change where all countries have a voice.

Meanwhile, former U.S. undersecretary of energy David Sandalow — who helped launch the Clean Energy Ministerial in 2009, which has helped 23 participating countries deploy clean energy technologies — contends that “a range of other multilateral, bilateral and public-private institutions are essential. Although the UNFCCC is essential, climate change is much too serious a problem to be left to the UNFCCC.”

Still, the U.N. climate talks are worth saving because they are the only international process for addressing climate change where all countries have a voice. A new worldwide agreement would send a wave of positivity into climate change efforts everywhere.

To have any hope of this, a completely different approach is needed to shake up the UNFCCC. Four key things need to take place in order to achieve a breakthrough at the 2015 negotiations in Paris.

1. Focus on a politically achievable agreement

The climate talks have been stuck in part because they pit governments against each other in a zero sum game. In attempting to set a ceiling on global carbon emissions by a certain date, countries must fight for elbow room in how much their own emissions are allowed to jump. But the artificial divide between developed and developing nations in the current negotiations framework makes no one happy. The largest historical polluters, such as the U.S., Canada and Australia, are worried about short-term adverse economic impacts from shouldering their responsibilities. Meanwhile large developing nations such as China are quickly catching up in per capita emissions and can’t yet predict how their growth will affect carbon emissions. And smaller, more vulnerable nations feel like they are shouldering the brunt of climate change without adequate compensation.

One possible scenario is to set a carbon cap, but allow countries to reach the goal at their own best pace.

To break the stalemate and declare a success, the talks need to shift the focus from quotas within a time frame to a more politically achievable agreement that is smaller in scope.

Although China is actively seeking a carbon cap pathway, it’s not likely to set a particular year to reach that cap before the Paris talks in 2015. Li explains that while developed nations can predict their energy consumption patterns, China has huge uncertainties in when it will mature — making it hard to project its carbon emissions peak. Li lists such uncertainties as 1) population projections due to changes in the country’s one-child policy, 2) the shape and pace of China’s unprecedented urbanization, 3) the projected completion of its age of industrialization, 4) the lack of solutions for moving from coal energy to clean energy, and 5) when China’s growth will plateau. Li likens China to a growing teenager whose mature height is hard to guess.

A second scenario advocated by James Cameron, a long-time climate talks participant and the non-executive chairman of Climate Change Capital, is to focus on setting carbon price signals. In this new approach to the model of common but differentiated responsibilities, each country “would provide a clear and effective market incentive to reduce emissions that is acceptable within the political culture and capabilities of each country.”

For example, Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990. China is currently piloting carbon emissions trading schemes in seven regions. In the U.S., emissions trading schemes are not politically viable, but the country has had success in setting regulatory limits on emissions from coal plants.

While a price on carbon is not the entire answer to reducing emissions, it’s the most essential incentive to drive corporate and individual behavior change.

Cameron, who is both a lawyer and financier, says that bridging the climate talks with the interests of private finance is crucial because the current attempts to raise public funds to compensate the most vulnerable nations for the climate risk imposed upon them by the pollution of developed nations can never fully satisfy. The amount proposed to be contributed to vulnerable nations for adaptation — $100 billion a year — is too small to make a meaningful difference but too big for any country to step up to the plate.

While a price on carbon is not the entire answer to reducing emissions, it’s the most essential incentive to drive corporate and individual behavior change. Such a market lever can pry open not just the pockets of public finance but the much larger pockets of private finance, because a price on carbon affects the rates of return for a vast range of actors in the international financial system.

If this new focus on price signals is adopted, the UNFCCC must transform from host and jury into a collaborative services center that enables governments to share experiences, solutions and technologies for creating carbon price signals.

2. Make China’s position strong and clear

Because many nations are waiting to see what China is willing to do before they shape their own climate agreement, a clear China plan on emissions reductions could be pivotal to a 2015 international agreement.

This international stance, however, puts China in a tricky position. The likelihood of a multilateral agreement succeeding in 2015 is currently low. Focusing mainly on China positions the country to be blamed if an agreement isn’t reached. From the point of view of many in China, climate change needs to be tackled earnestly by all governments together.

The good news is that although China is not yet ready to declare a carbon cap, it is already actively investing more in low carbon pathways than any other country. Therefore, there is an opportunity for China to better communicate to the outside world how strongly motivated the country is to go green and its strong stance on climate change. At the same time, other countries need to stop using China’s supposed reluctance as an excuse not to step up to the plate.

While a China commitment is key, human survival on a finite planet depends on all countries pulling their weight.

“China needs help to build more cultural bridges from those who understand China’s context and mind-set and who can play an active role in communicating its position,” says Mina Guli of Peony Capital, an Australian carbon markets expert living in Beijing. Toward that end, Ai Xing Han, a deputy director-general of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development, has invited negotiators to come to China and learn the language and culture to better understand Chinese decision-making processes.

While a China commitment is key, human survival on a finite planet depends on all countries pulling their weight. Beyond working to reach its own climate goals, China could also cajole other nations into action by announcing it would prefer trading partners that have committed to set a carbon price signal.

3. Redesign the negotiating process

One common criticism of the process is the “noise” associated with large open-ended forums. New forms of well-facilitated and conclusive working meetings are needed to help move toward draft statements in advance of Paris 2015.

If China’s role is key to a successful climate agreement, the negotiating process might be tweaked to engage China in a way that is more familiar to Chinese.

A potential game-changer would be to have the talks set in China. As a host country, China would feel obligated to put forward a positive commitment. Hosting the international community in a Chinese setting would also make it more comfortable for China to communicate — a factor that shouldn’t be underestimated when considering the success of negotiations.

4. Humanize the storytelling

James Chau, an anchor at China’s leading media organization, CCTV, who has reported at several UNFCC talks, says, “I have seen how quickly climate change talks have dropped off the global news agenda. The peak in terms of coverage and urgency was Copenhagen, but by Durban and certainly Qatar there has been little public appetite for this story.”

According to Chau, the UNFCCC needs to nurture more global personalities who can tell engaging personal stories to reignite the public imagination.

To engage citizens around the world to support their governments to get on board with a climate change agreement, the UNFCCC must take a different tack in its positioning. It needs to retell the story of climate change in a way that speaks to people personally, and hits them at their homes and in their hearts. The UNFCCC must become a skilled storyteller. For example, initiatives such as “Dream in a Box” from my organization JUCCCE reframes climate jargon into a conversation on reimagining prosperity. Overall, the talks need to broaden their emphasis from climate change to creating livable communities for the next generation. To make this happen, the UNFCCC should explicitly incorporate communications services into its responsibilities.

According to Chau, the UNFCCC needs to nurture more global personalities who can tell engaging personal stories to reignite the public imagination and connect climate change to overlapping issues such as poverty alleviation and health, so that citizens don’t only associate climate change with lost opportunities. A strategic set of journalists should be engaged in closed-door briefings to help shape their news content. Activists can learn from and work hand in hand with media to tell a better, more informed and accurate story.

Last Stand?

Right now, the talks are on the wrong track. Governments are spending a lot of time and carbon-heavy travel on a wrong approach, with perhaps the wrong mix of people in the wrong locations. Government leaders negotiating the agreement are disconnected from market makers who hold the reins in reducing emissions and the citizens who are affected by climate change.

What people are calling the “last stand for climate action at UNFCCC” in 2015 is just around the corner. The UNFCCC needs to reposition the agreement, redesign its negotiations process and reinvent itself quickly in order to stay relevant.

Editor’s note: The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Ensia. We present them to further discussion around important topics. We encourage you to respond with a comment below, following our commenting guidelines, which can be found here. In addition, you might consider submitting a Voices piece of your own. See Ensia’s “Contact” page for submission guidelines.

Show your support for nonprofit journalism!

Ensia shares solutions-focused stories free of charge through our online magazine and partner media. That means audiences around the world have ready access to stories that can — and do — help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please show your support today.

This is fascinating list of suggestions, and I thank you for recognizing the urgency of the upcoming UNFCCC negotiations.

However, how about instead of making small changes, we just ask for what we (extremely urgently) need?

1. We need all world leaders to declare that climate change is an emergency, because the probability and the possible magnitude of the risks are too high.

This can happen in September 2014 at the UN Climate Summit.

2. We need all world leaders to understand and state that a 2ºC rise in global average temperature is catastrophically high, and therefore 1-1.5ºC must be our internationally agreed upon limit.

The 2ºC "target" was never scientifically determined to be safe. We cannot allow ourselves to be led down that path. If world leaders don't choose 1-1.5ºC as our limit, they'll be committing progenycide.

3. We need all world leaders to start reducing their nations' carbon emissions by 2015.

The Climate Action Network (CAN) International June 2014 position statement shows that we can possibly avoid needing geoengineering in the future if we start reducing emissions in 2015, not putting off the inevitable until a more "politically acceptable" 2020 or later.

4. We need all world leaders and their climate change negotiators to adopt, at the COP20 climate conference in Lima, the language of the IPCC's best-case scenario, RCP2.6, PLUS the even-better positions of CAN International, which includes
· a complete transition and transformation to zero carbon (100% renewable energy) and a zero-carbon economy by 2050

Setting ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS as our global goal means that we don't have to fiddle and diddle with baselines and percentages and tit-for-tats and waiting for China and the US. A zero-carbon goal provides a level playing field and a common aspiration for every nation on Earth. It respects both climate science and climate justice (the least developed nations won't have as far to "drop" to get to zero).

5. We need all world leaders to stop subsidizing fossil fuel corporations to the tune of $1.9 trillion annually (IMF, 2013), switch those subsidies to perpetual energy technologies, and put a price on carbon.

Talk about a signal to the market! Virtually overnight, we'll see investments switched over to perpetual energy technologies (perpetual = renewable minus biomass; the Burning Age is over, no more fuels, no more burning, sorry Mr. Obama).

What is the use of continued economic development -- anywhere in the world -- if it's just going to speed up our demise as a species and the destruction of the biosphere?

Thanks Peggy for your insights on the clear problems we face and for proposing some viable solutions. I concur and also wholly endorse GreenHearted's additional proposals on having an even greater sense of urgency, which is right as the planet's climate is a non-linear system which is perilously close to jumping into a much less hospitable attractor - a jump that will be as sudden as it will be very nasty.
To loosely address your points in turn as a series of design problems:

1. Political viability: this varies enormously depending on the political-economies involved. Since they're essentially dynamical systems; mechanisms for allocating resources, knowledge and power, we would suggest a science-based approach where we take a mechanical engineering and thermodynamics-led approach. We need to identify the flows, where they are free and where they are blocked; where they are in balanced feedback and not.
The Constructal law of design in nature & culture is one such viable model to use.
A Facebook page, Asyntopia - addresses some of the potential solutions.
It's based on some of the geometrical signatures of Constructal heat flows, which I call the Asynsis principle (as just shared on TED - details below.)
In essence, they boil down to ensuring that balanced "engine" & "brake," positive & negative feedback loops, that both market & regulations are in place - as well as (as you say Peggy), putting a price premium on any activity that commits effective ecocide, be it carbon pricing or legal sanctions (ideally both).
This is generally supported in polling of the consumer-electorate, and as Al Gore says - the carbon taxes can be ploughed back into the economy to compensate consumers so the net effects are polluter-negative, revenue neutral but biosphere-positive.
So ensuring binding international laws of ecocide are in place by declaring sustainable development to be a fundamental human right, as LDC just proposed in his UN speech is crucial so that stakeholders can no longer say: "...well it may not be the most moral thing we're doing, but it's still not illegal."
We need to deploy some Platonic justice to ensure & enhance the Republics' happiness.
Also, we need to "hack the market" with carrot and stick strategies to design for the consumer/stakeholder behaviour we need.
More in the About section of the Asyntopia FB page: https://www.facebook.com/Asyntopia

2. China: the beauty of living and working in this ancient and highly pragmatic country for the last 8 years is to understand their gift for invention and lateral thinking.
Look at how they've fused Capitalism and Marxism - who would have thought?
In China, the state monitors, manipulates and (de)monetises (the 3Ms) stakeholders to suit. It's a kind of sovereign conglomerate.
In the West, it's the opposite, the stakeholders (corporates) perform the 3Ms on government in toto and individual politicians and of course the consumer-electorate.
What might just work for designing our new viable Glocal-savvy future is taking the part of the China model that we like (government - ie: our proxies as citizens - in the vanguard of society, regulating the excesses of corporate stakeholders), and then melding it with the part of the Western system we still like which is ideally (at least in theory), actual, much-enhanced, turbo-charged real government accountability to the citizens that elected them. So the 3Ms can be flipped on corporate and government stakeholders to act as the essential "brake" (governing) feedback loop that is needed to balance the "engine" of the market.
This monitoring, manipulation and (de)monetising needs to be a dual-carriageway, two-way street - just as in nature, to allow our civilisational dynamical system to persist more sustainably.

At the moment our global system suffers from too much engine and not enough brake, and we all know what happens when the brakes aren't working.

So polling, direct democracy and better using the transformational qualities of the internet (which is already delivering us a Renaissance 2.0 in so many areas of science, culture and politics), can make our politics more viable and map the particular, unique and isolated aspects of the Chinese system that work - thereby creating better governance in the West. The Chinese managed to learn from us (after all, both laissez faire capitalism and Marxism-Leninism were first developed in London), so perhaps it's time to repay the compliment with some inventive, fusion design?

3. Negotiate: Hong Kong is the bridge between China and the West, so I'd propose our beautiful "one-country, two-systems" city as the ideal middle-ground that is also, increasingly and inevitably, Middle Kingdom.

4. Human-Heartedness: As practicing designers - uniquely trained in holistic thinking (and synergising harmonious and beautiful solutions from complex & contradictory problems), creating empathic and human-centred design is at the very heart of what we do every day.
The Constructal law engineering referred to before, which is a science of energy flows, has remarkable geometric properties.
Those are of exemplary aesthetic beauty (Da Vinci even called them "Divine") and in Chinese philosophical terms, are also highly auspicious - conferring great good fortune on those practicing sustainability at any level, be they organisations or individuals.

This is a "killer app" for promoting "green is gorgeous (& very lucky)" sustainable design and development practice, especially in Asia.

So for more on our "Dao of Design" and "Form follows Flow" philosophy in support of designing a more sustainable, optimal. science-informed, aesthetically beautiful global system - please refer to our recent TED and UKTI talks in Hong Kong:
http://asynsis.styleonedigital.com/archives/4017
http://asynsis.styleonedigital.com/archives/4038

Post a Comment

You care about environmental issues. So do we!

Sign up now for our bi-weekly newsletter and you'll get the latest stories from Ensia delivered straight to your inbox.